Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I won't get drawn into the race thing, but I find that video fething disgraceful. Bunch of jerks.

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.

We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.

Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.

You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.

That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.

Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the cause of what the protest is about and how "white people" might fit into that, is prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.

The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.

"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I won't get drawn into the race thing, but I find that video fething disgraceful. Bunch of jerks.

Thats a live grenade waiting to go off mate.

Anyrace issue is basically a trap for any discussion.

"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

Oh dear god where is that from?

It sounds like a tumblr Feminist. Who are known for being sexist and racist.

It's from the second post in this thread, the link that cin posted.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

I laughed and I laughed hard and drop my coffee on this one

in revenge for #BlackBrunchNYC some uncool white people just flash mobbed a black barbecue joint and forcibly pulled up everyone's pants

For I remember a damn good BBQ joint at Ft Bragg right off post that have a sign saying "NO SAGGING A$$ PANTS!"

Relapse wrote:
The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.

I would assert that in the context of this discussion, we've had insufficient information to make that determination. In order to make an assertion about if they're undercutting their message or not, there at least has to be some understanding of what the underlying is message meant be. "Interrupting white supremacy" is certainly quotable but I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of thing you can take at face value as the complete picture of group's motivation and goals.

I suppose if you take it rather literally accepting the truth of it at face value, it's justified but possibly not effective.
If you don't accept it at all and reject any notion of unfairness entirely chalking things up to "Culture" or the like, the protests are neither effective nor justified.
If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.

I would suspect however that none of those three options really reflect the reality of the situation. Having any meaningful discussion about the reality of the situation must be first having a clear understanding of what the reality is.

Relapse wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Disproportionate does not mean "wrong".

The numbers requires one of two things to be true:

A: Blacks are inherently more prone to criminal behavior.
B: There are external systemic factors that account for the disproportion.

These are the two only two possibilities. Which one do you do you think accounts for it?

or
C. the proportion of crimes committed increases with socio economic class.

Bingo! That's why I asked my question about the system. To see if that was somehow included in option B. I used to work across from the Iberville projects in New Orleans and saw more than a fair share of crimes committed there as opposed to other parts of the city I either lived in or frequented.

I'd argue the majority is:
1. higher arrest rates (because, they were guilty of committing stupid visible crimes)
2. higher conviction rates (because they can't afford awesome attorneys)
3. higher punishment rates (because above and some actual discriminatory sentencing built into some laws like crack vs. cocaine punishments)

In actuality this theory works because, in essence, everyone is right.

That one was gold, definitely.

This is completely slowed. It will accomplish as much as the Occupy movement.

Ocham's says it's A.

 Jihadin wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

I laughed and I laughed hard and drop my coffee on this one

in revenge for #BlackBrunchNYC some uncool white people just flash mobbed a black barbecue joint and forcibly pulled up everyone's pants

For I remember a damn good BBQ joint at Ft Bragg right off post that have a sign saying "NO SAGGING A$$ PANTS!"

Thats quite popular. I hate people like that.

I think anyone with sagging pants need to be thrown to the fashion police.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

Agreed. Its difficult to argue you're being discirminated against by the police and then be racist yourself.

 Chongara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.

I would assert that in the context of this discussion, we've had insufficient information to make that determination. In order to make an assertion about if they're undercutting their message or not, there at least has to be some understanding of what the underlying is message meant be. "Interrupting white supremacy" is certainly quotable but I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of thing you can take at face value as the complete picture of group's motivation and goals.

I suppose if you take it rather literally accepting the truth of it at face value, it's justified but possibly not effective.
If you don't accept it at all and reject any notion of unfairness entirely chalking things up to "Culture" or the like, the protests are neither effective nor justified.
If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.

I would suspect however that none of those three options really reflect the reality of the situation. Having any meaningful discussion about the reality of the situation must be first having a clear understanding of what the reality is.

The whole "every 28 hours" thing they were jabbering on about was proven incorrect a while ago, yet they continue with it. They are dealing in fabrication with that one.

 Chongara wrote:

Relapse wrote:
The trouble is the protestors undercut their message by being obnoxious and giving out incorrect information.

I would assert that in the context of this discussion, we've had insufficient information to make that determination. In order to make an assertion about if they're undercutting their message or not, there at least has to be some understanding of what the underlying is message meant be. "Interrupting white supremacy" is certainly quotable but I'm not entirely sure it's the kind of thing you can take at face value as the complete picture of group's motivation and goals.

I suppose if you take it rather literally accepting the truth of it at face value, it's justified but possibly not effective.
If you don't accept it at all and reject any notion of unfairness entirely chalking things up to "Culture" or the like, the protests are neither effective nor justified.
If you reject any notion of unfairness, but accept that they're just trying to be a "bag of dicks" rather than lodging unjustified complaints then the protests are unjustified but possibly effective.

I would suspect however that none of those three options really reflect the reality of the situation. Having any meaningful discussion about the reality of the situation must be first having a clear understanding of what the reality is.

Oh contraire, one can easily undercut their message by preclusding people from wanting to investigate what your message is with your tomfoloolery.

I mean as an example, does anyone care what the KKK says its message is?

Thank god this idiocy hasn't been brought to Phoenix

Its seems to inhabit Democratic strongholds. Dumpwater Florida appears immune.*


*Note Frazzled is fine with legal marches. Thats the First Amendment in action, and we agree on many of the issues. Frazzled is not fine with stupid protests, especially from college dweebs who's best job post graduation will be the same Starbucks they are working at now, and riots should be put down with Mossberg 500s.

 Frazzled wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

Agreed. Its difficult to argue you're being discirminated against by the police and then be racist yourself.

Its why I find people who say that so funny.

They are just jokes now..


Especially in comparison to most movements. They are just becoming comedies of themselves.

Relapse wrote:

The whole "every 28 hours" thing they were jabbering on about was proven incorrect a while ago, yet they continue with it. They are dealing in fabrication with that one.

You can't really prove or disprove that claim in any way shape or form to be honest. Police are not required by law to report how many people they kill in any meaningful sense, and they don't do so. We really have no idea how many people police kill in the line of duty, black or otherwise. We can at best establish minimums.

Still even if we determine every word out their was spun whole cloth from fairy dust, it still requires a more nuanced understanding of what the issue is before making statements about how much or in what fashion such fabrications would "undercut the message".

Not that I'm advocating for dishonesty under any circumstances. It's just hard to do any meaningful analysis of falsehood (or anything else), in a vacuum.

Bingo! That's why I asked my question about the system. To see if that was somehow included in option B. I used to work across from the Iberville projects in New Orleans and saw more than a fair share of crimes committed there as opposed to other parts of the city I either lived in or frequented.

Yes. Socioeconomic factors are certainly a part of the system. However even if you determine that the current issues are directly caused only by socioeconomic factors with no racial bias, you can't divorce the current socioeconomic factors from their historic (and highly racial), causes.

How do you know they don't? AT worst where are they getting their number from?

Looks like not all reports going to the FBI. That should be the case. I agree transparency is required.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hundreds-of-police-killings-are-uncounted-in-federal-statistics-1417577504

 Frazzled wrote:
Its seems to inhabit Democratic strongholds. Dumpwater Florida appears immune.*


*Note Frazzled is fine with legal marches. Thats the First Amendment in action, and we agree on many of the issues. Frazzled is not fine with stupid protests, especially from college dweebs who's best job post graduation will be the same Starbucks they are working at now, and riots should be put down with Mossberg 500s.

I am inclined to agree with mr. Frazzled.

 Easy E wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.

Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.

Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.

That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.

that is the premise of disruptive protests.

protests do not have to disrupt anything to not be a waste of time as a rule.

that you equate disrupting other peoples lives with the only premise of protesting is quite out of touch.

its just as bother some to walk into a brunch restaurant and start shouting names of people who have been shot as it is to walk into any restaurant/public place and start shouting about whatever political/moral/religious/any opinions on anything you might have,

its not different then a bunch of pro life activists or peta people walking in, shouting for 5 minutes and disrupting everyones meal, and the net outcome is the same as if you just stood on a soap box in the street like any other preacher.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We're approaching our last brunch spot! #blackbrunchnyc interrupting white supremacy one brunch at a time."

No. No you're not. You're just being a bag of dicks. A racist bag of dicks.

Agreed. Its difficult to argue you're being discirminated against by the police and then be racist yourself.

pretty much this, there is a very large group of people complaining that everyone needs to look in the mirror but themselves.

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.

We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.

Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.

You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.

That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.

Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the underlying causes of the events being protested are and how "white people" might fit into that broader context is a prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.

Did you read the article I linked, at all?

They specifically target whites and 'white locations."

 Frazzled wrote:
How do you know they don't? AT worst where are they getting their number from?

I know they don't because they numbers aren't available. If you go looking you can't find them. Just google around for the figures on how many people die in confrontations with police every year. You'll find a bevy of "at least"s and "estimates show"s but no concrete "this many"s with sources. You'll find researchers again and again saying the data simply isn't available. Seriously go look, the information is not out there.

I suppose the worst place they could be getting their information is off the top of their I head. Like "I think 10,000 sound sounds like a good number. Let's say the police kill 10,000 people. No wait, say 10,001 the extra 1 shows it's serious.".

More likely someone pulled one of the more generous estimates and interpreted it liberally.

However that someone miscalculated a figure for a snappy talking-point is probably not the most productive thing to fixate on one way or another. Even writing the point off as the insane ramblings of jabbering madman, doesn't mean there isn't something deeper to this whole affair.

I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.

 Frazzled wrote:
How do you know they don't? AT worst where are they getting their number from?

The same place we always go to for information Frazzled, unreliable sources.

Yeah when I saw some of the data thrown around I started laughing quite a bit. Some of them were thrown around and exaggerated to succh a degree it is kind of interesting how no one has caught onto it.

 Albatross wrote:
I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.

What do you like about it?

 cincydooley wrote:


Did you read the article I linked, at all?

They specifically target whites and 'white locations."

My post doesn't deny that.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


I think it's B. But I don't think "white people" are responsible.

We'll leave "white people" out of it for now, as we're not really talking about them.

Well, we sort of are in this particular instance, as the purpose of "Black Brunch" was to disrupt white people specifically.

You may as well say this justifies the discussion be centered on brunch broadly, since it was disrupting that meal specifically as well.

That the protest meant to impact, gain the attention of, or broadly deal with white people does not necessarily the protest was about white people. It also does not mean the cause of what was being protested was specifically "white people" or "whiteness" in a strict sense. However despite that, "white people" or "whiteness" can still be relevant, and getting their attention or trying to send some message to them or about them can still be meaningful.

Recognizing that and coming to understanding about what the underlying causes of the events being protested are and how "white people" might fit into that broader context is a prerequisite to having a discussion about if the protest may have been justified, relevant or effective or not.

Did you read the article I linked, at all?

They specifically target whites and 'white locations."

Well, seems like there are plenty of white americans in this thread who seem to have very little problem with just accepting the status quo, so is it that crazy an idea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.

What do you like about it?

It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.

 Albatross wrote:
I liked the brunch thing, if I'm being honest. I think the reactions of some people on here bear out that it is a good idea.

right, so its ok if a religious group goes into a restaurant that you eat at, shouts at you for five minutes about how premarital sex and abortions mean you are bound for hell, thats ok right?

and its ok if they specifically target areas they think are rife with those who have sex/abortions/kids out of wedlock.

Not only is that ok and its to be expected/encouraged as something we need more of in society at large.

I think you owe westboro an apology if thats what you really think, as while you dont believe in what westboro believes, you certainly approve of their methods.

NYPD made no arrests I think. Anyone else catching onto that?

It shows up the petty irritation of people complaining about their brunch being disturbed, when people are fething dying.

Its my major problem with people in general. Especially with people thinking. "MY SNIPER RIFLE ON COD WAS NERFED! I AM GOING TO THREATEN THIS FAQ GUY With his life!"